I am only 40 pages in to this book but I already have questions that I would have liked to ask. First, Mr. Hitchens spends a good bit of time outlining why he distrusts organized religions; particularly monotheistic religions. One of his many gripes about monotheism is its insistence on being "the only true form of worship" and/or "right." Given that there are three primary 'western' monotheistic religions it would seem that this assertion, in and of itself, should be viewed as illogical. First, no one has any way of knowing for sure (false pretense). Second, that statement is decidedly of the 'poisoning the well' variety. Third, if one group is legitimately correct, then the others are incorrect. Given that we have already stated that the premise of the argument can not be valid we can assume that the argument and/or conclusion is also invalid.
It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument.
(Information found at: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx)
Why it doesn't strike 'true believers' as odd that so many others can disagree with their assertions is beyond me. Obviously they just assume that the 'other' is either misled, crazy, or stupid. Maybe they just aren't used to thinking.... Anyhow, I got off my main issue. What I have to say to Mr. Hitchens, or rather, what I would like to have asked, is this: If you get all worked up about these believers claiming to 'know' that there is a god, then why do you oppose this view with an equally unverifiable position (i.e. "There is no god,"). Claiming to be an atheist means that you have determined for yourself, and to your own intellectual satisfaction, that there is NO god. How can you do that without falling prey to the very same logical fallacies that so hinder the 'true believers' argument? I too am an atheist, but I would like to couch my atheism as an uncertain and fluid stance. Not that I fear the consequences if it turns out that I am wrong, because I don't. But because I can not possibly offer any persuasive argument that would justify categorically denying that there is not and/or can not be a god. I simply do not know. Therefore I will not make any bold universal claims to anyone other than myself (and my close friends). Some would say: "Well that makes you agnostic." I would disagree. I do not sit on the fence on this one. I have made up my own mind. Here is the thing: I am willing to apply the scientific method to my thought process and belief system (such as it is). I will continue to assert that I do not believe there is a god because if I did not then I would be intellectually dishonest. However, I will also be open to the possibility (an infinite possibility, given that knowledge seems to be infinite) that I can be wrong. I have been wrong in the past and I will be wrong again in the future. To that end I guess one could safely say that I am a critical atheist.
My second question would be why Mr. Hitchens, and so many other intellectuals, despise multiculturalism so vehemently. To be fair to Hitchens he did preface his statement by referring to 'empty-headed' multiculturalism. If he is limiting his beef with multiculturalism to those that pursue it in a hollow-headed and uncritical manner then I agree with the statement that follows. If he is simply saying that ALL multi-culturalists are empty-headed then I would have to ask him some pointed questions. For example: If you genuinely reject multiculturalism then what concept of collaboration/co-habitation would you advocate? One can not change the fact that the world is filled with multiple cultures that have their own distinct way of looking at the world without genocide (or allowing a HUGE amount of time for cultural evolution to occur, thus ultimately producing one shared Earth culture). So why argue against a school of thought that advocates the "live and let live" approach? I understand that being so dedicated to the ideals of multiculturalism that you commit cultural suicide (i.e. allowing one culture to destroy another simply because that is their cultural prerogative) is absurd. I would never take my views on mutual existence so far that I would allow my own culture to be eradicated. That would go against human nature (survival instinct). I will, however, continue to argue that we must be able to adjust to our differences in a way that allows for the existence of DIFFERENCES!!! Again, I would not stand idly by while one culture (or race, or ethnic group, or whatever) wipes another culture off the face of the earth. But I will continue to believe that we have a moral obligation, given the 'globalized' nature of our current era, to allow for cultural divergence.
Uncertainty can create paralysis when it is allowed to run rampant. I do not suffer from this affliction. I have my certainty, but I am also willing to entertain the notion that I could be wrong. If you want to simplify this and label it just a fancy version of uncertainty, then that is fine. I genuinely believe that it is a fairly reasonable position to take, given that I don't genuinely have any answers.
